X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2013 13:26:00 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com ([71.74.56.122] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.1) with ESMTP id 5999125 for lml@lancaironline.net; Mon, 07 Jan 2013 10:55:21 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=71.74.56.122; envelope-from=Wolfgang@MiCom.net X-Original-Return-Path: X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=IsacgcDg c=1 sm=0 a=MHZY6FYWMEQOp7S43i2QIw==:17 a=3Zlka_XeuxsA:10 a=ttCsPuSJ-FAA:10 a=rTjvlri0AAAA:8 a=D18zJgzaPCgA:10 a=Ia-xEzejAAAA:8 a=uhPMnebkAAAA:8 a=pGLkceISAAAA:8 a=CjxXgO3LAAAA:8 a=mHr6GJ5fAAAA:8 a=upXHrtAQAAAA:8 a=hcqGF3DA3YQl2VotHWMA:9 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 a=L6RNXGSmW5UA:10 a=f0s5FU26TKIA:10 a=EzXvWhQp4_cA:10 a=Hs9J3SXIuHcA:10 a=MSl-tDqOz04A:10 a=rC2wZJ5BpNYA:10 a=PPoi31BriXMA:10 a=LH2kcySOGVzz8sJs:21 a=Vk7DtBCATzxSqDY_:21 a=U7GFG9mJJuJjsfIBnU8A:9 a=_W_S_7VecoQA:10 a=tXsnliwV7b4A:10 a=zsfZYwSHaTOVY0ng:21 a=xFctzyyRfcda-DaP:21 a=eOEi-lWwHYXmcB00:21 a=MHZY6FYWMEQOp7S43i2QIw==:117 X-Cloudmark-Score: 0 X-Authenticated-User: X-Originating-IP: 74.218.201.50 Received: from [74.218.201.50] ([74.218.201.50:1161] helo=lobo) by hrndva-oedge02.mail.rr.com (envelope-from ) (ecelerity 2.2.3.46 r()) with ESMTP id AB/B4-06454-5CFEAE05; Mon, 07 Jan 2013 15:54:46 +0000 X-Original-Message-ID: From: "Wolfgang" X-Original-To: References: Subject: Re: [LML] Re: stalls X-Original-Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2013 10:54:44 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00A7_01CDECC5.66D4FFC0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5512 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5512 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_00A7_01CDECC5.66D4FFC0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The bad part about this "stall" discussion is that most people want to = stay away from stalls all together. - - - That's ridiculous ! If you want to call yourself a proficient pilot, you must be able to = react to most any circumstance, intended or not. The only way to get to that point is training in all parts of the = envelope. Saying that the only time you will likely get to a stall is in = the approach and then you don't have enough altitude for recovery is a = foolish response. Not training for certain circumstances because you're = not "comfortable" in said circumstances is courting disaster. The Lancair is high performance and as such, stall characteristics have = suffered. The stall comes on fast and with little warning. Learn to = recognize it and train how to handle it. . . . But those flight characteristics can be tamed without loss of = performance. Stall strips would be the easiest way to increase the = impending stall warning time. Why they aren't more prevalent, I don't = know. Wolfgang ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Todd Long=20 To: lml@lancaironline.net=20 Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2013 10:19 AM Subject: Re: [LML] Re: stalls I agree that testing and systems calibration needs to be done for = stall testing on new airframes. And new pilots need to learn approach to = stalls and recovery.=20 The only thing I take issue with is where some people advocate = everyone go out and regularly practice full stalls and recovery. These = are high performance aircraft that are not and will never perform like = certified airframes. Most got into the IV for the high speed. There were = trade offs to get that. Not necessarily unsafe trade offs. But ones that = mean it can not be treated like a bonanza. We don't go fly swept wing = jets like they were a bonanza. If you are unwilling to realize that in = the world of aircraft they are not all treated the same go back to = certified slower planes. Se of us have spent our careers in high = performance planes and know there are different operating and training = rules. Know what the plane will do but don't push it over the edge = thinking it will behave nicely.=20 Typing and grammar errors courtesy of Siri and the iPhone. On Jan 6, 2013, at 7:34, "Jarrett Johnson" = wrote: Todd, I think we are of a similar mindset when it comes to corporate = or business [charter?] aviation. My point is/was simply this. All certified types of planes are = tested to aerdynamic stall. They are validated to be recoverable from = stall, the appropriate stall warning systems are installed and = calibrated accordingly. Then the pilots who fly them day to day are = taught [in type] slow flight, approach to stall [identification of = impending stall] and recovery. In my experiance, most flight departments = train in this at least annually if not more regularly [I know some of = you jet drivers go to sim courses every 6 months, in my case it's either = sim or in-plane training annually]. Btw, V1 cuts aren't practiced on = this side of the border either, I've done all of mine 'in-sim' as well. I'm not advocating stalling a Citation X or similar aircraft, = however when we fly our Lancairs for the first time, we are the test = pilots. [if we don't want to properly test fly them, then maybe test = pilots should be hired who have the skills to do so, maybe testing = apparatus should be used as well; ie-spin chute system]. This means [in = my opinion] we should TEST the airframes the same way the test pilots = have tested the Citation X's or Hawker-700/800/1000 or G-IV or 650 or = whatever... they've ALL been tested [well, other than a large part of = the Lancair fleet]. Once testing is complete and the stall warning = devices are calibrated then it's practicing approach to stalls only.. = the aircraft doesn't need to be stalled again, granted there is no = aerodynamic alterations ever completed. If there is [such as your Hawker = experiance] then the a/c needs to have the stall warning devices = calibrated again which would require additional stall testing. The predominant mindset with many Lancair drivers/owners is.. don't = stall test and don't train for it [in type]. Yet people wonder why there = is such a large gap between the statistic's of business aviation and GA = flying and or why Lancairs have the worst record of pretty much any = other type of (GA) aircraft. Some owners HAVE taken the time to tame the = stalls on their Lancairs. If a select few can do it then it's 'possible' = for every single Lancair airframe to have it done to the same degree [in = my opinion]. Thats not to say that the 'taming/tuning' will be the same = on every airframe but it IS possible. I see a large gap between the way the 'rest of the aviation world' = and the 'Lancair world' views this segment of flight and flight testing = [and continual training]. To me it's as plain as day but... then maybe I = see things from a angle that most others don't.. I dunno. =20 All I DO know is I won't fly in someone's Lancair [or any = experimental A/c] unless I know it's been stall tested and has the = proper [calibrated] warning systems on it. I will do these tests on mine = before ANYONE else fly's in it with me. At the end of the day, thats all I CAN do. Fwiw Jarrett Johnson 235/320 -55% [and holding] On Sat, 05 Jan 2013 11:19:59 -0500, Todd Long = wrote: I have type ratings in jets which I currently fly and turboprops. = In neither do we teach stalls. Approach to stalls yes. Completely = different animals. We teach approach to stall recognition. AOA and = shaker get your attention and just power out. Back in the hawkers when = we removed and replaced TKS leading panel edges we had to go do full = stalls past the stick shaker. One time we did end up on our back, = continued the roll around to upright. Only specially trained PICs were = authorized to do these tests. I was the lowely SIC at the time. I = believe the low altitude single engine ops that were discontinued in the = reference was V1 cuts. We only do these in the sim now. There were a = number of accidents doing these in training. I have 8000+ hours and have never unintentionally stalled any = aircraft nor even got close. In high performance airplanes the pilot = needs to fly by the numbers not the seat of the pants. This goes for = jets, turbo props and definitely the lancair IV series. I have 3000+ = hours in a Ce-750 Citation X as PIC and have no idea how it handles in a = full stall. Using some people's logic I'm just too scared and shouldn't = be flying it. Really? In fortunately I do know how the Hawker 1000 can = stall in some situations and don't want to go there again. And that was = fully certified. If you can't fly without unintentionally stalling stay = on the ground. I don't need my insurance going any higher from stupid = accidents.=20 Sent from my iPad On Jan 4, 2013, at 13:01, "Jarrett Johnson" = wrote: This certainly isn't a new discussion and like Gary has = mentioned, there is no single silver bullet to answer it. I've been in = the thick of things in past discussions but have tried to stay in the = bleachers this time and observe the discussion. A couple clarifications = that I see [keep in mind I'm Canadian and our rules are 'slightly' = different, but not by much] and some-more 'opinion' to add to the mix: 1-It was mentioned that pilots of twin engine planes don't do = stall training,which [in Canada] is false, I do approach to stall = training every year while training and flight testing for my PPC on the = C425XP that I fly [for work]. Stall recovery is great... bring it up to = max torque and hold the pitch angle.. it immediately transitions from = many hundreds fpm of decent to a couple thousand fpm of climb.. a really = interesting experience compared to the same thing in a single [push, = power, recover]. 2-In Canada spin demonstrations AND training is a required step = in getting your private license, including w/ an instructor and solo = spins and has to be demonstrated on the flight test. I can't remember = the last time I heard of a spin training accident [in Canada], it's been = many years.=20 3-In Canada low alt single engine ops are part of the multi = training curriculum, including a complete shutdown and restart of the = engine [I've got pic's of my training, prop feathered and hanging out in = the breeze] and an approach AND landing needs to be demonstrated [one = engine in-op] and signed off as completed before you'll get your ride = approval to take your flight test. Again, I can't remember the last time = I heard of a twin engine training accident due to single engine ops [in = Canada]. 4-The thought that Jets aren't tested in slow flight [and = slower] is false as well, all of these jets are fully tested before = being signed off an 'released' for production. All pilots in training = then fly these maneuvers while doing type training [in simulators which = duplicate the tested results]. If you think that once you get your = Airline Transport License your done w/ stall/approach to stall training = for the rest of your flying career, your mistaken. I don't think anyone on the list advocating stall testing these = planes, is saying these planes need to be "deep stalled". However, = approach to stall and recovery at the first sign of stall is, in my = opinion, valuable training/testing of a new airframe. Unfortunately, = while everyone avoids the stall side of the envelope, this doesn't mean = the plane can't or won't [at some point] get to that flight condition. = To think otherwise is [again my opinion] 'Titanic like' thinking [when = they calculated how many life boats and vests they needed]. The 'blanket perspective' that high performance aircraft are not = safe in the slow speed corner of the envelope is false, look at the = PC-12 [Cruise at 260-280+knts yet land at less than 90knts, heck they = call it a STOL airplane in some publications!] or the C425 I fly, = [Cruise at 285knts, land at less than 100 and stalls as viciously as .. = well.. it ain't vicious at all], Malibu, Meridian, TBM.. there are lots = of higher performance aircraft out there that fly well in all corners of = the envelope, it just so happens that Lancair's mandate was speed at all = costs and the limited nature of the R&D program to clean these issues up = were not pushed as far as they maybe could have been, at least if they = had people would have a better "jumping off point" to tame the stalls of = their individual aircraft. Couple this with the small variances plane to = plane due to building tolerances, ever increasing gross weights and you = get a plane w/ potentially a nasty stall. That isn't to say that it's = not 'tameable' or correctable should it have more 'teeth' than expected. I guess if I'm going to fly w/ anyone else in my Lancair, I see = it as my duty to at least test to the stall and know how it behaves = before I convince someone else to come for a ride. I'd rather kill = myself in the testing than possibly myself and my 5yr old son or 3yr old = daughter [both of which have been 'biten' by the bug and LOVE flying w/ = me in the 425] or my wife or my mother or father etc etc. I want my = family to enjoy what I've built but I couldn't feel good/safe about it = if I didn't fully vet it and test those [potentially] darker corners of = the envelope. I couldn't imagine how I'd feel if I'd had an 'incident' = which snowballs into loss of life etc.[of course after 'loss of life' = I'm not 'thinking or feeling' anything but that ride down to 0 from = 10,000ft while being out of control... I'm pretty sure I'd be thinking, = esp w/ a family member along for the ride.. that's the stuff of = nightmares..] In my opinion, if your going to take other innocent individuals = for a 'ride' in the plane at a later date, then it should be tested at = both ends of the envelope prior to their experience. At least tested to = the stall point [not nesc a deep stall and not intentionally to spin it = but at least know where it stalls and how it recovers etc] and to Vne = [plus the required margin] to ensure there is no flutter at that end of = the spectrum either. Most of these planes are assigned a 20hr[min] to = 40hr test period, what else is there to do for 40hrs in the prescribed = 40nm test zone? If on the other hand your not going to fly anyone else in your = plane but just go out and enjoy it yourself, then have at er' in any way = you see fit. I will be 'approach to stall' testing my plane, Heck I might = even go as far as to build a spin chute system for it and I'll be doing = it w/ a personal chute on as well [I've survived skydives a couple = times] that is, when-ever it gets done... [geez it's been 'in-progress' = for years.. sigh... ] Jarrett Johnson 235/320 55% [and currently holding] On Fri, 04 Jan 2013 10:09:03 -0500, Gary Casey = wrote: I don't know if there is a single right or wrong answer to = this controversy, but here are a couple of observations: Years ago, twin engine training required demonstration of = low-altitude engine-out proficiency. That requirement was dropped and = the overall safety improved. Years ago, spin demonstrations were = required and then dropped - safety improved. Another observation: All = that have sided with stall training have warned about keeping = coordinated (ball in the center). I doubt that ANY inadvertent stall is = accompanied by a centered ball. I haven't stalled my ES. Gary Casey On Jan 2, 2013, at 7:15 AM, "David M. Powell CRFA" = wrote: I have made the decision prior to purchasing to avoid stalls = altogether in my 360. After reading the stall and stall spin accident = information, I just don't think it's worth the risk. On take-off, I stay = in ground effect for the half second it takes to make it into the green = after wheels up; on landing, I approach well above stall for my flap = configuration, and let the speed bleed off only a few feet above the = threshold. During normal flight, I don't even get near a typical slow = flight speed. Too many variables in a home built airplane with no = precise envelope, a header tank that is PROBABLY where I think it is, = but could be off by 30 or 40 pounds if the gauge is stuck; possible = extra wait in the tail area (water retention after heavy rain). www.innovention-tech.com ------=_NextPart_000_00A7_01CDECC5.66D4FFC0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
The bad part about this "stall" = discussion is=20 that most people want to stay away from stalls all together. - - - = That's ridiculous !
If you want to call yourself a = proficient pilot,=20 you must be able to react to most any circumstance, intended or=20 not.
The only way to get to that point is = training in=20 all parts of the envelope. Saying that the only time you will likely get = to a=20 stall is in the approach and then you don't have enough altitude for = recovery is=20 a foolish response. Not training for certain circumstances because = you're not=20 "comfortable" in said circumstances is courting disaster.
 
The Lancair is high performance and as = such, stall=20 characteristics have suffered. The stall comes on fast and with little = warning.=20 Learn to recognize it and train how to handle it.
 
. . . But those flight characteristics = can be tamed=20 without loss of performance. Stall strips would be the easiest way to = increase=20 the impending stall warning time. Why they aren't more prevalent, I = don't=20 know.
 
Wolfgang
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Todd Long=20
Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2013 = 10:19=20 AM
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: = stalls

I agree that testing and systems calibration needs to be done for = stall=20 testing on new airframes. And new pilots need to learn approach to = stalls and=20 recovery. 
The only thing I take issue with is where some people advocate = everyone=20 go out and regularly practice full stalls and recovery. These are high = performance aircraft that are not and will never perform like = certified=20 airframes. Most got into the IV for the high speed. There were trade = offs to=20 get that. Not necessarily unsafe trade offs. But ones that mean it can = not be=20 treated like a bonanza. We don't go fly swept wing jets like they were = a=20 bonanza. If you are unwilling to realize that in the world of aircraft = they=20 are not all treated the same go back to certified slower planes. Se of = us have=20 spent our careers in high performance planes and know there are = different=20 operating and training rules. Know what the plane will do but don't = push it=20 over the edge thinking it will behave nicely. 

Typing and grammar errors courtesy of Siri and the = iPhone.

On Jan 6, 2013, at 7:34, "Jarrett Johnson" <hjjohnson@sasktel.net>=20 wrote:

Todd, I think we are of a similar mindset when it comes to = corporate or=20 business [charter?] aviation.

 

My point is/was simply this.   All certified types of = planes=20 are tested to aerdynamic stall. They are validated to be = recoverable=20 from stall, the appropriate stall warning systems are installed and=20 calibrated accordingly.  Then the pilots who fly them day to = day are=20 taught [in type] slow flight, approach to stall [identification of = impending=20 stall] and recovery. In my experiance, most flight departments train = in this=20 at least annually if not more regularly [I know some of you jet = drivers go=20 to sim courses every 6 months, in my case it's either sim or = in-plane=20 training annually]. Btw, V1 cuts aren't practiced on this side of = the border=20 either, I've done all of mine 'in-sim' as well.

 

I'm not advocating stalling a Citation X or similar aircraft, = however=20 when we fly our Lancairs for the first time, we are the test pilots. = [if we=20 don't want to properly test fly them, then maybe test pilots should = be hired=20 who have the skills to do so, maybe testing apparatus should be used = as=20 well; ie-spin chute system]. This means [in my opinion] we should = TEST the=20 airframes the same way the test pilots have tested the Citation X's = or=20 Hawker-700/800/1000 or G-IV or 650 or whatever... they've ALL been = tested=20 [well, other than a large part of the Lancair fleet].  Once = testing is=20 complete and the stall warning devices are calibrated then it's = practicing=20 approach to stalls only.. the aircraft doesn't need to be stalled = again,=20 granted there is no aerodynamic alterations ever completed. If there = is=20 [such as your Hawker experiance] then the a/c needs to have the = stall=20 warning devices calibrated again which would require additional = stall=20 testing.

 

The predominant mindset with many Lancair drivers/owners is.. = don't stall=20 test and don't train for it [in type]. Yet people wonder why there = is such a=20 large gap between the statistic's of business aviation and GA flying = and or=20 why Lancairs have the worst record of pretty much any other type of = (GA)=20 aircraft. Some owners HAVE taken the time to tame the = stalls on=20 their Lancairs. If a select few can do it then it's = 'possible' for=20 every single Lancair airframe to have it done to the same = degree [in my=20 opinion]. Thats not to say that the 'taming/tuning' will be the same = on=20 every airframe but it IS possible.

 

I see a large gap between the way the 'rest of the aviation = world' and=20 the 'Lancair world' views this segment of flight and flight testing = [and=20 continual training]. To me it's as plain as day but... then maybe I = see=20 things from a angle that most others don't.. I dunno.   =

 

All I DO know is I won't fly in someone's Lancair [or any=20 experimental A/c] unless I know it's been stall tested and = has the=20 proper [calibrated] warning systems on it. I will do these tests on = mine=20 before ANYONE else fly's in it with me.

 

At the end of the day, thats all I CAN do.

 

Fwiw

Jarrett Johnson

 

235/320 -55% [and holding]



On Sat, 05 Jan 2013 11:19:59 -0500, Todd Long <toddlong1@gmail.com> = wrote:

I have type ratings in jets which I currently fly and = turboprops.=20  In neither do we teach stalls. Approach to stalls yes. = Completely=20 different animals.  We teach approach to stall recognition. = AOA and=20 shaker get your attention and just power out. Back in the hawkers = when we=20 removed and replaced TKS leading panel edges we had to go do full = stalls=20 past the stick shaker. One time we did end up on our back, = continued the=20 roll around to upright. Only specially trained PICs were = authorized to do=20 these tests.  I was the lowely SIC at the time. I believe the = low=20 altitude single engine ops that were discontinued in the reference = was V1=20 cuts. We only do these in the sim now. There were a number of = accidents=20 doing these in training.
I have 8000+ hours and have never unintentionally stalled any = aircraft nor even got close.  In high performance airplanes = the pilot=20 needs to fly by the numbers not the seat of the pants.  This = goes for=20 jets, turbo props and definitely the lancair IV series. I have = 3000+ hours=20 in a Ce-750 Citation X as PIC and have no idea how it handles in a = full=20 stall. Using some people's logic I'm just too scared and shouldn't = be=20 flying it.  Really?  In fortunately I do know how the = Hawker=20 1000 can stall in some situations and don't want to go there = again. And=20 that was fully certified. If you can't fly without unintentionally = stalling stay on the ground. I don't need my insurance going any = higher=20 from  stupid accidents. 

Sent from my iPad

On Jan 4, 2013, at 13:01, "Jarrett Johnson" <hjjohnson@sasktel.net>=20 wrote:

This certainly isn't a new discussion and like Gary has = mentioned,=20 there is no single silver bullet to answer it. I've been in the = thick of=20 things in past discussions but have tried to stay in the = bleachers this=20 time and observe the discussion. A couple clarifications that I = see=20 [keep in mind I'm Canadian and our rules are 'slightly' = different, but=20 not by much] and some-more 'opinion' to add to the mix:

 

1-It was mentioned that pilots of twin engine planes = don't do=20 stall training,which [in Canada] is false, I do approach to = stall=20 training every year while training and flight testing for my PPC = on the=20 C425XP that I fly [for work]. Stall recovery is great... bring = it up to=20 max torque and hold the pitch angle.. it immediately transitions = from=20 many hundreds fpm of decent to a couple thousand fpm of = climb.. a=20 really interesting experience compared to the same thing in a = single=20 [push, power, recover].

2-In Canada spin demonstrations AND training is a required = step in=20 getting your private license, including w/ an instructor = and solo=20 spins and has to be demonstrated on the flight test. I can't = remember=20 the last time I heard of a spin training accident [in Canada], = it's been=20 many years.

3-In Canada low alt single engine ops are part of the multi = training=20 curriculum, including a complete shutdown and restart of = the engine=20 [I've got pic's of my training, prop feathered and hanging out = in the=20 breeze] and an approach AND landing needs to be demonstrated = [one engine=20 in-op] and signed off as completed before you'll get your = ride=20 approval to take your flight test. Again, I can't remember the = last time=20 I heard of a twin engine training accident due to single engine = ops [in=20 Canada].

4-The thought that Jets aren't tested in slow flight = [and=20 slower] is false as well, all of these jets are fully tested = before=20 being signed off an 'released' for production. All pilots in = training=20 then fly these maneuvers while doing type training [in = simulators which=20 duplicate the tested results]. If you think that once you get = your=20 Airline Transport License your done w/ stall/approach to=20 stall training for the rest of your flying career, your=20 mistaken.

 

I don't think anyone on the list advocating stall=20 testing these planes, is saying these planes need to = be "deep=20 stalled". However, approach to stall and recovery at the first = sign of=20 stall is, in my opinion, valuable training/testing of a new = airframe.=20 Unfortunately, while everyone avoids the stall side of the = envelope,=20 this doesn't mean the plane can't or won't [at some point] get = to that=20 flight condition. To think otherwise is [again my opinion] = 'Titanic=20 like' thinking [when they calculated how many life boats and = vests they=20 needed].

 

The 'blanket perspective' that high performance = aircraft=20 are not safe in the slow speed corner of the envelope is false, = look at=20 the PC-12 [Cruise at 260-280+knts yet land at less than 90knts, = heck=20 they call it a STOL airplane in some publications!] or the C425 = I fly,=20 [Cruise at 285knts, land at less than 100 and stalls as = viciously=20 as .. well.. it ain't vicious at all], Malibu, Meridian, = TBM..=20 there are lots of higher performance aircraft out there that fly = well in=20 all corners of the envelope, it just so happens that Lancair's = mandate=20 was speed at all costs and the limited nature of the R&D = program to=20 clean these issues up were not pushed as far as = they=20 maybe could have been, at least if they had people would have a = better=20 "jumping off point" to tame the stalls of their individual = aircraft.=20 Couple this with the small variances plane to plane due to = building=20 tolerances, ever increasing gross weights and you get a plane w/ = potentially a nasty stall. That isn't to say that it's not = 'tameable' or=20 correctable should it have more 'teeth' than expected.

 

I guess if I'm going to fly w/ anyone else in my Lancair, I = see it as=20 my duty to at least test to the stall and know how it behaves = before I=20 convince someone else to come for a ride. I'd rather kill myself = in the=20 testing than possibly myself and my 5yr old son or 3yr old = daughter=20 [both of which have been 'biten' by the bug and LOVE flying w/ = me in the=20 425] or my wife or my mother or father etc etc. I want my = family to=20 enjoy what I've built but I couldn't feel good/safe about it if = I=20 didn't fully vet it and test those [potentially] darker = corners of=20 the envelope. I couldn't imagine how I'd feel if I'd had an = 'incident' which snowballs into loss of life etc.[of course = after 'loss=20 of life' I'm not 'thinking or feeling' anything but that = ride=20 down to 0 from 10,000ft while being out of control... = I'm=20 pretty sure I'd be thinking, esp w/ a family member along for = the=20 ride..  that's the stuff of = nightmares..<shutter>]

 

In my opinion, if your going to take other innocent = individuals for a=20 'ride' in the plane at a later date, then it should be = tested at=20 both ends of the envelope prior to their experience. At least=20 tested to the stall point [not nesc a deep stall and not=20 intentionally to spin it but at least know where it stalls and = how it=20 recovers etc] and to Vne [plus the required margin] to = ensure there=20 is no flutter at that end of the spectrum either. Most of these = planes=20 are assigned a 20hr[min] to 40hr test period, what else is there = to do=20 for 40hrs in the prescribed 40nm test zone?

 

If on the other hand your not going to fly anyone else in = your plane=20 but just go out and enjoy it yourself, then have at er' in any = way you=20 see fit.

 

I will be 'approach to stall' testing my plane, Heck I might = even go=20 as far as to build a spin chute system for it and I'll be = doing it=20 w/ a personal chute on as well [I've survived skydives a couple=20 times] that is, when-ever it gets done... [geez it's = been=20 'in-progress' for years.. sigh... ]

 

Jarrett Johnson

235/320 55% [and currently holding]

 



On Fri, 04 Jan 2013 10:09:03 -0500, Gary Casey <casey.gary@yahoo.com= >=20 wrote:

I don't know if there is a single right or wrong answer = to this=20 controversy, but here are a couple of observations:
Years ago, twin engine training required demonstration of = low-altitude engine-out proficiency.  That requirement = was=20 dropped and the overall safety improved.  Years ago, spin = demonstrations were required and then dropped - safety = improved. =20 Another observation:  All that have sided with stall = training=20 have warned about keeping coordinated (ball in the = center).  I=20 doubt that ANY inadvertent stall is accompanied by a centered=20 ball.  I haven't stalled my ES.
Gary Casey
 
On Jan 2, 2013, at 7:15 AM, "David = M. Powell=20 CRFA" <superdmp@sonic.net>=20 wrote:
I=20 have made the decision prior to purchasing to avoid stalls=20 altogether in my 360. After reading the stall and stall spin = accident information, I just don't think it's worth the = risk. On=20 take-off, I stay in ground effect for the half second it = takes to=20 make it into the green after wheels up; on landing, I = approach well=20 above stall for my flap configuration, and let the speed = bleed off=20 only a few feet above the threshold. During normal flight, I = don't=20 even get near a typical slow flight speed. Too many = variables in a=20 home built airplane with no precise envelope, a header tank = that is=20 PROBABLY where I think it is, but could be off by 30 or 40 = pounds if=20 the gauge is stuck; possible extra wait in the tail area = (water=20 retention after heavy=20 = rain).



 





www.innovention-tech.com
=


------=_NextPart_000_00A7_01CDECC5.66D4FFC0--